Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Apr 2011 17:50 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Gnome The day is finally here, the day that the GNOME team releases GNOME 3.0, the first major revision of the GNOME project since 2002. Little of GNOME 2.x is left in GNOME 3.0, and as such, you could call it GNOME's KDE4. We're living in fortunate times, what, with two wildly divergent open source desktops.
Thread beginning with comment 469445
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Sigh...
by tuma324 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 07:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh..."
tuma324
Member since:
2010-04-09

"I abandoned KDE forever since KDE 4 and I moved to GNOME... And now? Shall I have to abandon GNOME as well?
And then? Move to XFCE4 or forget Linux altogether?
My only regret is that my core i7 laptop PC was 999 Euro, whilst a core i7 MacBook Pro is 2499 Euro.


The one thing that always confused me with the open source world is that they'll strike a perfect idea and then completely f--k it within a few releases. GNOME 2.x in my books is a great desktop and if GNOME 3.x was merely some refactoring underneath components with GTK+/GLIB/ATK given an overhauling, speed improvements, refinement in the interface for better consistency and improving the individual applications that make up GNOME it would be a strong 3.x upgrade. What have we got with GNOME 3.x? it as though those who were designing simply decided to be different for the sake of being different - "its a big number revision we better do something that shows things have really changed!".
"

The GNOME 2.x interface is dated, GNOME 3 provides a new and innovative interface.


Mac OS X and Windows haven't stagnated, the developers at said companies have realised they're onto a good thing and now in the process of refining and smoothing out the rough edges - why couldn't GNOME developers do the same thing?


Because GNOME is not Mac OS X or Windows. In a few years you will probably realize that moving forward with the GUI is also important.

Learn to adapt yourself to changes, it's not that hard, it will only do you good.

Edited 2011-04-07 07:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Sigh...
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Apr 2011 07:55 in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The GNOME 2.x interface is dated, GNOME 3 provides a new and innovative interface.


But how is it 'dated'? I never said that it should remain static, as I implied in the prior post the primary focus should be on the backend with the UI keeping the same but with some refinements. The GNOME way of doing things work, sure the new preferences in GNOME 3.0 is really nice but it could have been achieved without the need of GNOME shell appearing. Personally I would have sooner seen the move to the 'global menu' idea that was floated at one point than seeing the GNOME shell but then again since I don't use GNOME my opinion doesn't really count for much at the end of the day.

Because GNOME is not Mac OS X or Windows. In a few years you will probably realize that moving forward with the GUI is also important.

Learn to adapt yourself to changes, it's not that hard, it will only do you good.


I suggest you look through Macrumors at the wailing and gnashing of teeth when it comes to people complaining about some pretty trivial changes that have appeared in Mac OS X Lion. I'm not complaining about these changes, I think change is good if done for the right reasons but one has to realise that for the vast majority of people they have never learned the fundamental conceptual underpinnings of a UI thus any slight change to the UI throws them off.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Sigh...
by tuma324 on Thu 7th Apr 2011 20:43 in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh..."
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

"The GNOME 2.x interface is dated, GNOME 3 provides a new and innovative interface.


But how is it 'dated'? I never said that it should remain static, as I implied in the prior post the primary focus should be on the backend with the UI keeping the same but with some refinements. The GNOME way of doing things work, sure the new preferences in GNOME 3.0 is really nice but it could have been achieved without the need of GNOME shell appearing. Personally I would have sooner seen the move to the 'global menu' idea that was floated at one point than seeing the GNOME shell but then again since I don't use GNOME my opinion doesn't really count for much at the end of the day.

Because GNOME is not Mac OS X or Windows. In a few years you will probably realize that moving forward with the GUI is also important.

Learn to adapt yourself to changes, it's not that hard, it will only do you good.


I suggest you look through Macrumors at the wailing and gnashing of teeth when it comes to people complaining about some pretty trivial changes that have appeared in Mac OS X Lion. I'm not complaining about these changes, I think change is good if done for the right reasons but one has to realise that for the vast majority of people they have never learned the fundamental conceptual underpinnings of a UI thus any slight change to the UI throws them off.
"

Incremental development and changes is nice as you say, but there has to be a point where you have to say "Let's recreate this desktop and make it 1000 times better." or whatever they said. And then start from scratch, looking for the future, and write something more beautiful than before with strong foundations for the present and future, something that doesn't look just beautiful but something that is easy to maintain and something that performs better in every way.

How is that a bad thing? It has to be done sooner or later, we can't just make incremental and little tweaks to a desktop that is showing its age when the competition (KDE4, Windows, Mac OS X) look much better in just every aspect of their GUI.

I think the GNOME team did a great job with GNOME 3, and things like that is what we need on Linux, people who are brave enough to say "We can do better than this and we will do it.". and I believe that's good, competition and innovation is good, it will only benefit the users in the long run, and I hope Desktop Linux continues with that path, I hope running the major DEs on Wayland is the next thing.

I understand that it might be annoying for some users to have to relearn the Desktop, but I don't think it'll be that hard, I mean, it's not that different and it's not that bad if you think about it, it just depends how you look at it.

Edited 2011-04-07 21:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2